On June 20, 2001, DeKalb County police officers executed a search warrant on Dean Evans’s residence and found 28 grams of cocaine and 4,582 grams of marijuana. After a bench trial based upon the evidence adduced at an earlier hearing on motion to suppress, Evans was convicted of two counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. On appeal, Evans claims the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress. We disagree and affirm because the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant showed a fair probability that contraband would be found at Evans’s residence. 1. Evans contends that the search warrant was defective because the affidavit described a different location than was actually searched. If a premises sought to be searched is identified by street and number, then that description will not authorize a search of a premises of another street or number. See Bell v. State , 124 Ga. App. 139, 140 182 SE2d 901 1971 physical precedent only. Evans claims that his correct address was 305 Walden Walk Drive, Quail Ridge Apartments, Stone Mountain, Georgia, but that the street address shown on the affidavit was 1247 Adcox Road, Apartment 305. Evidence presented at the motion to suppress showed that Walden Walk Drive was not found in the DeKalb County records but was a private roadway within the Quail Ridge Apartments; that 1247 Adcox Road is the street address for the Quail Ridge Apartments; and that there is only one Apartment 305 in the Quail Ridge Apartments. The address was sufficient because there was no probability that the warrant identified any other apartment in the complex. See McNeal v. State , 133 Ga. App. 225, 228 1 211 SE2d 173 1974.
2. Evans claims the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant failed to show probable cause for a search of his residence. In determining whether an affidavit provided sufficient probable cause, the issuing magistrate or judge must make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Punctuation and footnotes omitted. Shivers v. State , 258 Ga. App. 253, 254 573 SE2d 494 2002. “We must review giving great deference to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause, keeping in mind that affidavits are normally drafted by non-lawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Curry v. State , 255 Ga. 215, 217 1 336 SE2d 762 1985.
